United States District Court Magistrate Judge Paul S. Grewal has granted Apple its requested Motion for Sanctions, penalizing Samsung for refusing to provide evidence in a timely fashion.

Apple requested the court sanction Samsung in March, arguing that Samsung has repeatedly failed to produce documents and source code ordered by the court, and that theses delays were creating an onerous burden because of the time consuming analysis of Samsung's continually changing Android code made asserting any claims of patent infringement a "moving target."

Two weeks ago, Samsung was found by the same judge to be in violation of a court order requiring the firm to product documents mentioning Apple's products, evidence Apple plans to use to prove that Samsung willfully infringed upon its designs. This resulted in a fine.

Now, Samsung's delay tactics have resulted in an additional and more serious rebuke by Judge Grewal, who ordered that "Samsung's failure to adequately produce source code to Apple violated the court's December 22 Order," as reported by Florian Mueller of FOSS Patents.

The source code was supposed to document how Samsung had worked around design or technical elements Apple had patented, including the "overscroll bounce" described in U.S. Patent No. 7,469,381.

Instead of producing this evidence, which could be used to help Samsung's case (but could also be used by Apple to prove additional or continued infringement) the company chose instead to keep Apple and the court waiting.

Attorneys for the iPhone maker argued that it was "too late for Apple to make meaningful use of any late produced source code" from Samsung, and petitioned the judge to ban Samsung from "relying on or in any way using the source code it failed to timely produce under the December 22, 2011 order."

Judge Grewal has now subsequently ruled that "Samsung shall be precluded from offering any evidence of its design-around efforts for the '381, '891 and '163 patents, and shall not argue that the design-arounds are in any way distinct from those versions of code produced in accordance with the court's order. Samsung must instead rely solely on the versions of code that were produced on or before December 31, 2011."

Mueller explains, "In other words, Samsung may have to assume liability for continued use of old, possibly infringing code because the new, possibly non-infringing code wasn't shown in time."

we all know Samsung "borrowed" ideas from Apple, but think of it this way: if a judge ordered Apple to provide it's source code to a competitor, would Apple just hand it over? NO, there would be delay after delay and appeal after appeal until the code wasn't valuable to anyone anymore.

Originally Posted by desarc
we all know Samsung "borrowed" ideas from Apple, but think of it this way: if a judge ordered Apple to provide it's source code to a competitor, would Apple just hand it over? NO, there would be delay after delay and appeal after appeal until the code wasn't valuable to anyone anymore.

Well, if Apple is ever accused of copying someone (instead of the other way around) and they do the same thing Samsung is doing here, your position can be taken into account.

we all know Samsung "borrowed" ideas from Apple, but think of it this way: if a judge ordered Apple to provide it's source code to a competitor, would Apple just hand it over? NO, there would be delay after delay and appeal after appeal until the code wasn't valuable to anyone anymore.

That's not true. Apple has been forced to provide source code to competitors in the past.

Furthermore, there are generally very severe restrictions on the use of the source code and your software engineers can't get access to it. It is restricted to experts and lawyers in most cases.

Besides, Samsung never appealed that order on the basis of confidentiality, so they can't really use that argument. In addition, it's unlikely that Apple could learn very much from Samsung about OS development.

"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"Gatorguy 5/31/13

we all know Samsung "borrowed" ideas from Apple, but think of it this way: if a judge ordered Apple to provide it's source code to a competitor, would Apple just hand it over? NO, there would be delay after delay and appeal after appeal until the code wasn't valuable to anyone anymore.

Of course not. It's called an interlocutory appeal, and allows a party to appeal a ruling of the District court to the Appeals Court to argue that the order should be modified or rescinded. No, courts do not allow delay after delay without sanctions and there are legal remedies for it.

Originally Posted by marcusj0015
Well, Samsung is a person, according to the law, Throw Samsung in jail for the bullshit and violating the Judge's orders.

If I was the judge, I'd do it to show how ridiculous it is anyway.

Yep, the entire company. I support this.

Build even bigger buildings with barred windows around each of Samsung's buildings. Handcuff the levers of all of their construction equipment. The televisions are going to resist, so we're gonna have to tazer them. Transport the audio hardware to a Tibetan monastery and force it to take a vow of silence. And then just IMEI-block their phones.

That's not true. Apple has been forced to provide source code to competitors in the past.
Furthermore, there are generally very severe restrictions on the use of the source code and your software engineers can't get access to it. It is restricted to experts and lawyers in most cases.
Besides, Samsung never appealed that order on the basis of confidentiality, so they can't really use that argument. In addition, it's unlikely that Apple could learn very much from Samsung about OS development.

Android is available to anyone and I am sure apple has engineers that coulld pull Samsungs Nonsense layer off a device if the really wanted to. I agree with you that this is not about protecting source code from ip theft IMHO they are doing this to hide their ip theft.

we all know Samsung "borrowed" ideas from Apple, but think of it this way: if a judge ordered Apple to provide it's source code to a competitor, would Apple just hand it over? NO, there would be delay after delay and appeal after appeal until the code wasn't valuable to anyone anymore.

That's not the issue. the issue is does Apple comply with court orders?

By failing to comply Samsung has shown twice now they have no respect for this judge who represents US law.

You're barking up the wrong tree here with your hypothetical which is so meaningless as to be ridiculous.

Better than my Bose, better than my Skullcandy's, listening to Mozart through my LeBron James limited edition PowerBeats by Dre is almost as good as my Sennheisers.

Android is available to anyone and I am sure apple has engineers that coulld pull Samsungs Nonsense layer off a device if the really wanted to. I agree with you that this is not about protecting source code from ip theft IMHO they are doing this to hide their ip theft.

There are some versions of Android "available to anyone" and then there are other versions protected by "trade secrets", which is what Google claimed when asked to produce Nexus code in one of the Motorola trials.

Doing it without permission would probably come under illegally obtaining evidence.

Better than my Bose, better than my Skullcandy's, listening to Mozart through my LeBron James limited edition PowerBeats by Dre is almost as good as my Sennheisers.

Android is available to anyone and I am sure apple has engineers that coulld pull Samsungs Nonsense layer off a device if the really wanted to. I agree with you that this is not about protecting source code from ip theft IMHO they are doing this to hide their ip theft.

If what you say is true, why would Samsung ignore a judge's order - not once, but twice - to avoid turning it over?

The answer, of course, is that Google uses an unusual definition of 'open'. They mean 'partially open, but we keep some of the code confidential and our licensees can do so, too'.

Furthermore, licensees can add their own proprietary code on top of Android, so having copies of Android would not give Apple all of Samsung's modifications.

The most important reason, however, is rules of evidence. If Apple were to use Google's code, they would have to establish (almost line by line) that the code was being used by Samsung. That would mean one of two things - either have Samsung's people testify after a lengthy evaluation of the code that it's theres (and even then there's room for error) or simply get the code from Samsung to avoid any such legal difficulties.

"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"Gatorguy 5/31/13

2. The sun was in their eyes?
3. Thought the judge was talking to the OTHER Samsung?
4. Their car broke down?
5. When the deadline was given they thought they were referring to the Seoul timezone?
6. Oh, the judge meant THIS year?
7. It's in their other pair of pants?
8. Sorry. No understand English!
9. Their legal team was too busy designing the S III:http://www.redmondpie.com/samsung-galaxy-s-iii-is-designed-entirely-by-lawyers/

This post is even better if you add an imaginary drumroll and cymbal crash!

we all know Samsung "borrowed" ideas from Apple, but think of it this way: if a judge ordered Apple to provide it's source code to a competitor, would Apple just hand it over? NO, there would be delay after delay and appeal after appeal until the code wasn't valuable to anyone anymore.

An appeal (what they should have filed) is asking the court to reconsider.

we all know Samsung "borrowed" ideas from Apple, but think of it this way: if a judge ordered Apple to provide it's source code to a competitor, would Apple just hand it over? NO, there would be delay after delay and appeal after appeal until the code wasn't valuable to anyone anymore.

and there would be fines sanctioned

this is just standard form. the court tells you to do something, you file an appeal. it is rejected and you don't do what you were told then you are in contempt and you pay for it. figuratively and/or literally

2. The sun was in their eyes?
3. Thought the judge was talking to the OTHER Samsung?
4. Their car broke down?
5. When the deadline was given they thought they were referring to the Seoul timezone?
6. Oh, the judge meant THIS year?
7. It's in their other pair of pants?
8. Sorry. No understand English!
9. Their legal team was too busy designing the S III:http://www.redmondpie.com/samsung-galaxy-s-iii-is-designed-entirely-by-lawyers/

If people would do the right thing to begin with these lawsuits would never happen. Buy products from the people that create (invent) them. They are the ones who incur the r&d expense and take all the risk that people will buy what they create. A copy is a copy. People should not reward counterfeiters. More truly new innovation would be the result. How much cheaper would an ipad or iphone be if Apple didn't have to include the cost of defending it's inventions in the price? Unfortunately people do not always shop with a conscience. Apple may need to start producing products of the "self destructing if tampered with" nature - mission impossible style. Where would that leave the competition? Support the people who invent and create what you want to purchase and they will continue to innovate in response. Support the copy cats and they will continue to steal. Vote with your wallet.

Is there a major difference in Apple adding to and improving what Motorola, Nokia, Blackberry and others created and Samsung, Motorola, HTC and Nokia adding to and improving on what Apple created? None of these guys, Apple included, were capable of inventing their products in a vacuum. They all need and rely on each others inventions and creativity to be successful.

Is there a major difference in Apple adding to and improving what Motorola, Nokia, Blackberry and others created and Samsung, Motorola, HTC and Nokia adding to and improving on what Apple created? None of these guys, Apple included, were capable of inventing their products in a vacuum. They all need and rely on each others inventions and creativity to be successful.

Of course there's a difference.

Apple often builds on open source stuff (and gives back to open source). The authors intend for that to happen.

Apple sometimes uses concepts that others have created and then modifies the concept for its own use. Again, as long as this isn't a slavish copy or a patented technology, it's understood that people will use good ideas that others created.

In some cases (such as Apple's arrangement with Xerox), Apple negotiates a deal to gain access to technologies.

Similarly, when you invent something, patent it, and then release it as FRAND, you are giving permission for others to use it under FRAND terms. You create an obligation for yourself to treat everyone fairly and reasonably.

What the companies you are talking about have done is quite different. Samsung's Tab was so similar to the iPad that even Samsung's attorney couldn't tell the difference. Look at the accessories that Samsung sells. They really couldn't come up with their own design for a charger? In addition, many of the things in products from the companies that you cited infringe on Apple's patents which were NOT released to the industry as FRAND.

Surely even an Apple-hating shill can comprehend the difference.

"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"Gatorguy 5/31/13

There are some versions of Android "available to anyone" and then there are other versions protected by "trade secrets", which is what Google claimed when asked to produce Nexus code in one of the Motorola trials.

Doing it without permission would probably come under illegally obtaining evidence.

Android 4.0 code is open source and published. Google is saying that they (or perhaps Samsung?) enhanced/fine-tuned the software for use with the Nexus which would make that a trade secret. Android is open source (depending on who's definition you use), but the enhancements or add-ons for particular devices might not be.

Android 4.0 code is open source and published. Google is saying that they (or perhaps Samsung?) enhanced/fine-tuned the software for use with the Nexus which would make that a trade secret. Android is open source (depending on who's definition you use), but the enhancements or add-ons for particular devices might not be.

In addition, Google has released some versions of Android for which they did not make the source code available for a long time (maybe not at all, but I'm not sure about that).

"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"Gatorguy 5/31/13

In addition, Google has released some versions of Android for which they did not make the source code available for a long time (maybe not at all, but I'm not sure about that).

Pretty much correct, tho it was only the 3.0 Honeycomb tablet-specific build that was significantly delayed as far as I know. Google did eventually publish it a few months ago once 4.x was released. I suspect that had more to do with Amazon's Fire, with Google delaying the Honeycomb build release as much as possible to force them into using the older Gingerbread code for their forked version..